2010:warmest year ever since records began

[Diogenes]

Yes we do, it's don't let it start in the first place! EVERYONE is addicted to Heroin. They just don't know it because they haven't had a chance to try it.

Where do you get your information? The Government propaganda agencies? The very people who depend on this nonsense to maintain funding?

From people who have been there, done that. Crack and Meth are also highly addictive.

Fewer than 10% who try heroin get addicted. It was why Bayer thought they had invented a wonder drug. The first 10 people they tried it on did not get addicted.

Oh, well then, that's different. If it only addicts and kills ten percent of the population I can see why it ought to be widely available. Mark me as a convert.

Funny. You get that Global Warming is a wallet extraction scheme. You do not get that the Drug War is also a wallet extraction scheme. Exact same MO. The government invents a scare and then demands funds to fight the menace.

Yeah, way back in 1911, or something. (Whenever it started. I no longer recall, but I know I've read it from your messages a half dozen times or more. )

You see, this is why the idea has no credibility whatsoever. You have to believe that it has been a conspiracy to make money since it's inception, (shades of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion!) yet I distinctly recall you having posted numerous articles claiming that the drug war is based on RACISM! If it's supposed to be a "Wallet extraction thing" how can it also be explained by Racism? The idea that it should be both, complete with conspiracy, starts to resemble a Rube Goldberg device. Occam's Razor demands that that theory should die!

You see, my theory is that initially people didn't realize the stuff was dangerous, and it wasn't until people started dying from drugs, that the Government decided that it was a dangerous substance that needs to be controlled because people get injured if the stuff is left lying around.

I believe you've posted articles describing laudanum addiction affecting a large component of the population at one time.

And you know what else is funny? You can't reason with a Warmist or a Drug Warrior. Their respective faiths are unshakable.

Yeah, they are exactly the same thing. People oppose global warming because they are racists too.

Faith is a wonderful thing. Faith in Government is.... Well let us just say that a conservative with faith in government is either a contradiction in terms or the "conservative" is really a progressive in disguise.

There is no faith involved. There is an acknowledgment that we need a government. That the government has specific tasks which it is needed to perform that are crucial to the existence of a nation. That among these tasks are law enforcement and crime prevention. (Protecting Citizens from other citizens, denizens, etc.) That Drug prohibition falls within the subset of Law enforcement and crime prevention, and is therefore Appropriate and justified.

[Diogenes]

There's certainly some small AGW effect, but I'm not sure I believe it's large enough to prevent an Ice Age.

At this point, i'm not buying anything these people are selling. So many false claims have been made that the data needs to meet a threshold of "D@mn good"-ness before I will grant it any credibility.

[Diogenes]

Drugs, CREATE addiction. By not suppressing them, are you not increasing the probability that more people will become addicted?

Actually, this is not true. If you place drugs beside a person, that person will not become addicted.

You are correct. Drugs within the proximity of an individual do not cause addiction. The person must consume them AND have the correct genotype to become addicted.

Drugs do not cause addiction. People pursuading others to take drugs cause addiction.

No, it's the drugs. You can persuade someone to try something all you want, and if you haven't got the drugs, they will remain unaddicted.
They cannot become addicted to something they haven't tried. It is the chemical binding to the appropriate cells that initiates the addiction if the individual is susceptible to it. You're chain of causality is too long.

And in most cases, the people doing the pursuading are other addicts looking for a source of money to maintain their own over priced addiction.

Kinda like hookers recruiting young girls so they can make a buck off the new meat. I guess if drugs were virtually free and easy to obtain, Hookers would have no reason to do this, because if they don't need the money for drugs, they wouldn't need it for anything else either.

If the drugs were available at reasonable price, the number of addicts created in that vacinity would reduce to almost nothing. Many events have demonstrated this phenomenon.

Yeah, death reduces the number of addicts. And hookers. Almost the same thing.

I would say the answer to this question can be found by examining the British Opium trade in China. At some point there was relatively few opium addicts. Eventually, there were so many that they had tstart killing them to save their nation.

The British in this case take the place of the "other addicts" and they did it for a VERY cynical reason. The emperor of China at the time would not let the British import anything legally to earn their gold back. The Brits were sending tons of it to China for Chinese goods and couldn't earn it back, so they used the drug trade as a tool of war to 1, get their money back, and 2, disrupt the government of China.

What on earth gave the British the idea that drugs might disrupt the government of China? Everyone knows that abundant drugs cause no problems whatsoever!

If the emperor had allowed the drug trade (which was illegal in China at the time) and put a reasonable tarriff on the drugs, his family might still be in power.

I guess the British were correct in their belief that spreading drug use in China would result in a disruption of it's government. Sneaky limeys!

The notion that tolerance of drugs would be beneficial seems contradictory to the historical facts.

Look at all of history, not just the part you want to bolster your argument.

Well, the part where the Chinese cured their drug problem by killing all their addicts seems to be proof that the problem can be solved, but I would hope that a less draconian solution might be found.

[Diogenes]

Regardless of the outcome, it is dishonest to claim my intention was to burn my wife's butt.

Not your intent, merely your responsibilty. And your intent does not in any way absolve you of your responsibility. The road to hell is paved with such irresponsibility.

As the topic is ostensibly "lying about my intentions." then the results of aforementioned intentions are not germane to the topic. My intentions are what they are, they are not something else.

I am pointing out that equivalence of outcome is not equivalence of intent.

[Diogenes]

I assume you are talking about crime prevention. The fact that we still have rapes and murders after thousands of years of trying to minimize it.
No, I know you are talking about drug interdiction, but you are failing to concede that your argument applies exactly to crime in general.

The argument that because we cannot prevent all crime(drugs), we must stop trying to prevent crime(drugs) , is just plain silly.

Aha! It finally comes out. You are confused. Drug use is NOT a crime, it is a vice.

Oh, well if it's a vice, then that explains everything. I suppose murder, rape and robbery could be considered to be vices as well, if you have that perspective. Lying is a vice. When you lie in court it is a crime.

The two are completely different things. They can both be made "felonies" by a stupid legal system, but they are physically and morally DIFFERENT things. And when you confuse them, and apply the kind of remedy that is appropriate for crimes, you get the adverse consequences being discussed.

Hey, when you don't, you get even WORSE adverse consequences.

People have the right to voluntary action. When you violate someone elses volunteer status (murder, rape) you are committing a crime. (Morality)

What if you violate an animal? Is that a crime? Last I heard it was illegal because we have a law against it. Of course, Libertarians want to get the morality out of the legal system, so it's a fair question to ask if a crime has to have a moral issue to be a crime?

This business of morality and law can be very confusing at times. I keep trying to tell people that a Law is nothing but legislated morality. It is Morality by consensus.

Some things may be bad for you. If you violate YOURSELF, (drugs) you are indulging in vice. (Ethics)

What if you want to cut off both your legs because it arouses you sexually? (or Put whatever action in here sufficient for you to concede the person is crazy and needs to be protected from themselves till they can be cured.)

I'm just trying to figure out how you define boundaries and legitimate government concerns. Once we establish a baseline, we can move it until we find a boundary, and then you can explain why that boundary is there. Hopefully i'll be able to understand then.

[MSimon]

Alcohol and tobacco are more dangerous than heroin and meth (or its chemical analogs) is given to children.

BTW anecdotal evidence is proof of nothing.

If you really want to know the literature may I suggest you start with this Consumer's Union report:

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/lib ... cumenu.htm

Your science is weak and your anecdotes are strong. Which is why I call The Drug War the CAGW of conservatives. i.e. Progressive Conservatives are immune to facts on the subject. I consider you an outstanding example of the species.

Also note: we have all seen what alcohol does to some people. Why no call for alcohol prohibition? After all alcohol kills far more people than heroin. Also note: the folks who over use alcohol tend to be the same people who over use other drugs. They are called polydrug users.

So alcohol is a BIG problem. Why not switch problem users to heroin which is not near as hard on the body? Assuming you really cared. Which I do not believe for a moment. You are just looking for people to punish.

"Distrust anyone in whom the desire to punish is powerful" Friedrich Nietzsche

I'm not a big follower of Fred. But in this case I think he has a point.

IMO the only valid use of government is to punish A for DIRECTLY harming B. If A is harming A then it is none of the government's business. Of course I don't just mouth the words "limited government". I really believe it. No doubt a failing on my part.

I do believe any power given to the government to do "good" will eventually be used to do evil. Thus I prefer to do what ever good is required personally. Conservatives used to think like that.

As my brother Jeff used to say:

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it. Thomas Jefferson

I feel the same and tend to err on the same side.

I call for a division of labor: let the government deal with crime and let the churches go after vice.

====

Just as a carbon tax has done nothing to retard the production of CO2 in places it has been enacted so too has the drug war done nothing significant in impeding the flow of drugs. Yet in both cases a class of criminals has been greatly enriched. I wonder what the common thread is?

The government has delivered on none of its promises re: the drug war. Heroin is 600 times cheaper than it was 40 years ago. And yet you ask for more.

The only places that vices are even somewhat effectively policed are police states. And those are subject to vast corruption. And what segment of the population is most effectively policed for vice? The poor. Because the rich can talk or buy their way out.

Class warfare all the way. No doubt a prime conservative value.

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... s-war.html

Personally I think class warfare is a Progressive Value. I against the war of the poor on the rich and the war of the rich on the poor.

Putting the criminal justice system in charge of treating drug addiction is literally attempting to do brain surgery with a truncheon.

[KitemanSA]

Yeah, death reduces the number of addicts. And hookers. Almost the same thing.

You keep harping on "death" and I am not sure why. Seems you think that folks who get addicted are just absolutely gonnna die from the drugs. This is far from the truth. Indeed, most deaths occur not from the drug, but from the drug war. And I am not even talking about the violent criminal activity the WAR causes.

Even those who die of a overdose are almost always the victims of dosing errors that occur due to lack of responsible provision. There are no regulations, even via common law, to allow folks to know from day today what they are taking. So yet again it is the suppression that causes the effect, not the drug per-se.

Most addicts get wise and quit. Most of the rest figure out how to deal with it for the rest of their fairly long life. Few die, and those are due to the suppression.

Of course, some suicide with drugs. Too bad, so sad, but hardly the drug's fault.

[KitemanSA]

I assume you are talking about crime prevention. The fact that we still have rapes and murders after thousands of years of trying to minimize it.
No, I know you are talking about drug interdiction, but you are failing to concede that your argument applies exactly to crime in general.

The argument that because we cannot prevent all crime(drugs), we must stop trying to prevent crime(drugs) , is just plain silly.

Aha! It finally comes out. You are confused. Drug use is NOT a crime, it is a vice.

Oh, well if it's a vice, then that explains everything. I suppose murder, rape and robbery could be considered to be vices as well, if you have that perspective. Lying is a vice. When you lie in court it is a crime.

Non-sequitur, and a non-sense one at that. Read the rest of the statement before you shame yourself like this.

The two are completely different things. They can both be made "felonies" by a stupid legal system, but they are physically and morally DIFFERENT things. And when you confuse them, and apply the kind of remedy that is appropriate for crimes, you get the adverse consequences being discussed.

Hey, when you don't, you get even WORSE adverse consequences.

Only if you view things thru your rose colored glasses, or maybe from where you have your head buried. Somehow I can't share your assessment that drive-by shootings, bad dope overdoses, robbery to purchace over-priced illegal drugs, and mostly government corruption is somehow a LESS serious consequence than a small number of folks being slightly less productive economic units for big business.

People have the right to voluntary action. When you violate someone elses volunteer status (murder, rape) you are committing a crime. (Morality)

What if you violate an animal? Is that a crime? Last I heard it was illegal because we have a law against it. Of course, Libertarians want to get the morality out of the legal system, so it's a fair question to ask if a crime has to have a moral issue to be a crime?

If the animals are "people", then yes. I said people, not homo-sapiens. So far, Homo-Sap are the only recognized people, but I don't insist on it. Not sure what this has to do with anything. Again, you confuse "crime" and "illegal". "Crimes" and "vices" are different but can both be "illegal". I have never met a Libertarian who wants to get "morality" out of the legal system unless they are using the term "morality" to mean "religeous dogma". In that case, I agree with them, but I will try to use the correct term.

This business of morality and law can be very confusing at times. I keep trying to tell people that a Law is nothing but legislated morality. It is Morality by consensus.

Morality is, there is no legislation needed. What gets legislated is the govenrment's reaction to immoral behavior. Ethics also is. Unfortunately, much legislation tries to mandate ethical behavior by treating it as if it is a moral issue. This attempt will always fail with significant adverse effect. It is natural law.

People have the right to voluntary action. (morality)
You can't do good (ethics) by doing wrong (morality).
Like all toxic substanses, government programs are subject to the J-Curve.

Johansen's three laws, learn them.

Some things may be bad for you. If you violate YOURSELF, (drugs) you are indulging in vice. (Ethics)

What if you want to cut off both your legs because it arouses you sexually? (or Put whatever action in here sufficient for you to concede the person is crazy and needs to be protected from themselves till they can be cured.)

I'm just trying to figure out how you define boundaries and legitimate government concerns. Once we establish a baseline, we can move it until we find a boundary, and then you can explain why that boundary is there. Hopefully i'll be able to understand then.

Not my cup-o-tea. I can't really think that it is any-one else's either. So I can't play this "what-if". If you can convince me that somehow being crazy means that someone is NOT "people" and therefore can be owned by another person who there-after has the right to do with their property as they wish and prevent that not-person from such activity, good luck. I don't think is it gonna happen.

[KitemanSA]

Diogenes:

IMO the only valid use of government is to punish A for DIRECTLY harming B. If A is harming A then it is none of the government's business. Of course I don't just mouth the words "limited government". I really believe it. No doubt a failing on my part.

MSimon ALMOST has it correct. The goverment should help B "punish" A if A harms B... without B's permission. B has the right to VOLUNTARY action. If A has involved B in an action involuntarily, than A has done wrong (immorality). If A is harming A, then A is doing something bad (unethical), which is none of the governments business, unless A is doing the government's business at the time.

[KitemanSA]

Putting the criminal justice system in charge of treating drug addiction is literally attempting to do brain surgery with a truncheon.

Good one dude!!

[Helius]

Alcohol and tobacco are more dangerous than heroin and meth (or its chemical analogs) is given to children.

Whatever. lets discourage the use of Tobacco, Alcohol, and the self dosing of dangerous compounds for recreational purposes among children, OK?

BTW anecdotal evidence is proof of nothing.

It's evidence.

Your science is weak and your anecdotes are strong.

You mean the evidential points made previously?

Also note: we have all seen what alcohol does to some people. Why no call for alcohol prohibition? After all alcohol kills far more people than heroin. Also note: the folks who over use alcohol tend to be the same people who over use other drugs. They are called polydrug users.

Alcohol consumption should be actively discouraged too, especially among children.

So alcohol is a BIG problem. Why not switch problem users to heroin which is not near as hard on the body? Assuming you really cared. Which I do not believe for a moment. You are just looking for people to punish.

Nope. Pushing Heroin would result in loosened sanction on two substance abuse issues.

"Distrust anyone in whom the desire to punish is powerful" Friedrich Nietzsche

I'm not a big follower of Fred. But in this case I think he has a point.

Me too. It is often the case that the use of drugs is self punitive and self destructive.

[KitemanSA]

Regardless of the outcome, it is dishonest to claim my intention was to burn my wife's butt.

Not your intent, merely your responsibilty. And your intent does not in any way absolve you of your responsibility. The road to hell is paved with such irresponsibility.

As the topic is ostensibly "lying about my intentions." then the results of aforementioned intentions are not germane to the topic. My intentions are what they are, they are not something else.

I am pointing out that equivalence of outcome is not equivalence of intent.

Interesting. My take on this sub-topic had nothing to do with you "lying" about your intentions. My point was that the purity of your intentions did not absolve you of the responsibilty for the forseeable results of your actions.

Now if you are calling your wife a liar, no wait, you think she is calling you a liar because she accused you of intending to burn her butt...

Whatever the case, your action causes the seat to be hot. Be responsible, be a man.

[KitemanSA]

Also note: we have all seen what alcohol does to some people. Why no call for alcohol prohibition? After all alcohol kills far more people than heroin. Also note: the folks who over use alcohol tend to be the same people who over use other drugs. They are called polydrug users.

Alcohol consumption should be actively discouraged too, especially among children.

That is right! If a kid has a beer, throw him into jail for 5 year. 10 years for the second. Three strikes and he's out for life. That'll learn'im.

[MSimon]

Putting the criminal justice system in charge of treating drug addiction is literally attempting to do brain surgery with a truncheon.

Good one dude!!

Thanks!

[MSimon]

Whatever. lets discourage the use of Tobacco, Alcohol, and the self dosing of dangerous compounds for recreational purposes among children, OK?

I had my first beer at age 5. Given to me by my father. At my request. No doubt I was a ruined at that point and never recovered.

But I have an actual fact with research to back it up. It is easier for kids (that would be children) to get illegal drugs than it is for them to get a beer. If the drug war is for the children it is ill serving them.

The problem with anecdotes is sampling error. Is the sample representative or an outlier?

There is a huge propaganda machine run by government to keep all these outliers in the public eye. Which is why I call the Drug War the CAGW of the right.

Take heroin - about 2% of the population (same as in 1900) use opiates with some frequency (once a year or oftener). About 5% of those (.1% of the population) are problem users.

Dr. Marks in England was allowed to do a study (subsequently shut down by the US since the results didn't support the drug war). It went something like this: when a population of hard core addicts in a neighborhood was given a regular supply of heroin of known purity about 40% of those getting their supplies from the doctor were able to hold down jobs. In addition thefts in the neighborhood dropped by around 65%.

So prohibition encourages real crime and keeps many hard core addicts out of the productive economy.

But none of this will make any difference to believers.

What amuses most is that those with the least faith in government are the most likely to believe the Drug War serves a useful purpose. Darnedest thing I ever saw.

================

Another amusing thing is that we spend something like 1/2 or 2/3s of our police resources to keep a very few people from doing something to themselves. Why is that? Well the Federal Government subsidizes local police to do it. And you are not going to believe this but local police follow the money.

So the local police don't answer your call? Why you ask? There is very little money in chasing down burglars.

Well. You get what you pay for.

And what are you paying for?

1. Easy access to illegal drugs for children (as compared to beer)
2. Property crime in the 'hood.
3. Police focus on vice rather than crime

I hope you are getting your money's worth.